“Oh, it’s not so bad,” I said. I was sitting on a raised planter on a street corner in San Francisco, the home of Tolerance.

“Smoking is bad for you!”

“You gotta die of something, lady. And this isn’t a bad way to go.” Cars streamed by, dumping their noxious fumes into the air. I thought of this because I was going to tell her that my cigar was comparatively harmless and that if she knew what was good for her, she would never go outside.

But she said, “Well you can choose to die of something else.”

And then I said, “But I enjoy it.” She looked startled. Some internal war played across her face. I puffed. She said, “Well.” I said, “You have a nice day.” She walked on.

I had hit upon, quite by accident, The Argument, the one method of persuasion that has no counter, that works like garlic on vampires. If you enjoy it, it must be good. Not just as in it feels good, but that it is morally good because it feels good.

The only possible rebuttal to a modern is that which you are doing does not feel good to them. This, incidentally, is what led these intrepid moralists to invent “second-” and “third-hand smoking” and to weep about how they suffer from it.

Since I am a gentleman, I was resisted telling the old lady to mind her own business. It’s not as if I were walking up to strangers and puffing into their faces, baiting them. You better say you like smoking or I’m going to call you a bigot.

The Mind-Your-Own-Business used to play strong. You did what you wanted, I did what I wanted, and with the usual provisos and within well known boundaries, as long we both kept to ourselves, we could still get along. We could even be friends.

But this idea is now dead. To modern moralists, everything is their business. And nothing makes them happier than telling people what to do.

Disagreement is not and cannot be tolerated. Disagreement makes the modern moralist feel bad about himself, and there is no worse sin than making somebody feel bad. If a person disagrees with a modern moralist, the only explanation the modern moralist can imagine is that this person is full of hate, that he is a raving bigot, or that he is insane.

For instance, Supreme (the word now has to be used ironically) Court Judge Anthony Kennedy famously wove into the fabric of American law that the only possible reason a person could have against so-called same-sex marriage was animus. What about millennia of tradition, natural law, commonsense, logic, biology, science, religion? No. It must be hate. And hate is intolerable.

Earlier this week we talked about Laverne Cox, a man pretending to be a woman, part of a growing brigade of such people. Most of us really don’t care what Cox does. All we want is to be left in peace. But there is no live and let live anymore. No leave me alone and we’ll leave you alone. No: for the modern moralist, it is all or nothing. You must not only enter into Cox’s deception, but you must approve of it.

Kevin Williamson didn’t. He wrote a syndicated column saying what we said: Cox is a man, despite his fancy dress and lipstick. Reaction was interesting.

The bulk of the moralists pretended outrage. They calumniated Williams, as was their duty, but these people would do the same were Cox to pretend he was a duck “trapped” in a man’s body, as long as that was what they thought they ought to be for. Don’t scoff. All that’s needed is some quack to invent a theory which catches the imagination and soon people will be walking around in feather suits daring you to laugh.

A few people were genuinely incensed. They believed Cox was a “woman”, and were damned if they would let anybody publicly disagree. Williams must be punished, these people said. He must be fired. Williams was “full of hate” and a “transphobe.”

Remember that Colorado bakery who refused to bake a cake for a homosexual couple? So-called same-sex marriage is illegal in Colorado, incidentally. No matter. The government said the man must still bake the cake in spite of his religious beliefs. And that he must undergo “sensitivity training”, which is the current euphemism for Reeducation Camp.

There is only one correct belief and all shall be forced under duress to state it. This is what is known as Freedom and Tolerance and Love.

Share this:

Related

They’re already walking around in fur suits-http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2001/03/furries200103http://www.anthrocon.org
It’s “pretend” for now, but who knows?

The major point I believe is that you must AGREE with these people. You cannot possess a moral code that would say anything is wrong that they did not approve of. Of course, they approve of almost anything except disapproving unless it’s they who are doing the disagreeing. So agreeing to disagree is not possible because you can’t disagree unless it’s with disagreeing. They refuse to acknowledge just how rediculous this whole argument is and more and more people seem to buy into it. You can’t disagree unless “they” say you can disagree but disagreeing is bad and wrong unless they disagree. Say that 20 times really fast.

It’s all a very childish way of holding their breath and turning blue until they get their way. Sadly, like the typical reaction to a toddler holding their breath, society gives in and says “okay”. Then society complains about the “unintended consequences” like people running amok and killing others because someone disagreed with them or they didn’t get their way. It’s a recipe for destroying society and they’re really proud of themselves for engaging in the behaviour. Too bad they don’t really like or care about people. Just themselvesâ€¦â€¦.

Here in the Socialist Republic of Berkeley, my cigarette smoking does not go over well. In fact, in designated commercial zones it’s a fineable offence. I’ve not gotten a ticket, but a meter maid warned me about it before I was aware of the law. Annoying, yes; and darn near oppressive when I’m out and about and dying for a drag. There aren’t many back alleys like Manhattan either; though no one ever gave me a second glance while I strolled up 3rd Ave. to work, puffing away merrily. I’d like to not get cancer and not annoy people, but I like smoking so damn much.

Re: Colorado bakery. Used to be “We reserve the right to refuse service to ANYONE” was the law of the land. Or at least the de facto law. Whether or not SSM is on the books in the state seems irrelevant. I don’t see getting a wedding cake as an essential service. This is a grey area for me, but I don’t think the baker should be forced to make the cake.

I get it that it needles you, and frankly I don’t like it at all either. It is an anecdotal story however. It’s hard for me to gauge how widespread the liberal thought police have actually metastasised vs. the noise some conservatives are making about it. And that bothers me even more … I don’t like not knowing.

I read Williamson’s column after the Sun-Times took it down; found it on the wayback machine. It wasn’t very nice, but it wasn’t hate. Thing to keep in mind is that most of the hate out there doesn’t get published. When the liberal harpies who aren’t direct targets of it start lobbying for getting people fired, that’s where I direct my own ire. Cheers.

From “South Park”, back in season 6 (2002).http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Death_Camp_of_Tolerance
‘Tolerant, but not stupid! Look, just because you have to tolerate something doesn’t mean you have to approve of it! If you had to like it, it’d be called the Museum of Acceptance! “Tolerate” means you’re just putting up with it! You tolerate a crying child sitting next to you on the airplane or, or you tolerate a bad cold. It can still piss you off! ‘

– Note that the ideological left no longer uses the word “tolerance” anymore – they have moved on to demanding acceptance.

As a liberal in ideology but without a party who’d have me even if I wanted it, I laughed my head of at that episode. It’s worth nothing Parker (or was it Stone?) is on record as saying “I hate conservatives, but I really effing hate liberals.”

There will always be uptight, proselytizing, nosy people. They’re can be of any political, religious, cultural persuasion. They usually occupy the extremes of whatever their interested in. They are often the protesters, the activists, the organizers, etc.

To say liberals have a corner on uptight, proselytizing, nosy people is just stupid. You’d have to have been born yesterday in San Francisco.

I see some conservative commentary out in the wild acting like liberal activism is something new. The first rally cry I remember is “liberal media”. Then “liberal academia”. And now “liberal elite”. One liberal wag spoke my thoughts most eloquently, “Maybe reality has a liberal bias.”

Having grown up in a bastion of conservative thought in the Midwest, I confess that I oft take some pleasure seeing elements of the right squirming uncomfortably. Schadenfreude, like smoking cancer sticks, is one of life’s all but irresistible guilty pleasures. Experience tells me that it also knows no ideological boundaries.

Ignored history tends to repeat itself. Lotsa’ people out there who need to wake up.

Brandon: One of the prime examples of conservatives jumping on a “cause” without any real thought was the Cliven Bundy mess in Nevada. I repeatedly posted on blogs that backing a lawbreaker is really hypocritical considering the same people were blasting Obama for lawbreaking. I was appalled at how many so-called law and order conservatives were falling all over themselves to tell us how wonderful Cliven, the lawbreaker, was. It fit with their belief that the goverment had too much power so they championed said individual. You are correct, liberals don’t have a monopoly on this kind of behaviour. Conservatives/republicans can say one thing and then do another with the best of them. That in and of itself is a bit depressing.

RE: Smoking….Our city chief of health (and it’s Ottawa so it’s a million people) was recently advocating banning outdoor smoking on city property like parks. He cited peer-reviewed science which shows outdoor smoking can be as harmful as indoor second hand smoke.

I decided to track down this study. The study said the conditions outdoors can approach average indoor conditions when the subject was within three feet and downwind.

So our chief of health gave the truth but certainly not the whole truth. Can you believe that crap? These are the kind of people that we this is pointed out they simply come back with “but smoking is bad”. It’s like facts and accuracy don’t matter because the crusade is too important for those impediments.

I know of a magician who carries a fake cigar (painted wood) that looks like its lit. It’s always women who come over snorting and pre-angry and insist he put it out. When he shows them it’s fake, they remain angry.

Remember that conservative is the new liberal and that liberal is the new progressive or socialist. Of course you may not have noticed since the term liberal was high jacked before you were born. So what kind of liberal are you, new liberal, classical liberal (i.e libertarian), or something else ?

Also “Having grown up in a bastion of conservative thought in the Midwest, I confess that I oft take some pleasure seeing elements of the right squirming uncomfortably.” Is conservative and right wing the same thing? Isn’t right wing simply what the left calls the opposition and thus has no other meaning? That was simply the origin of the term. Why would you want to see others squirm uncomfortably? Isn’t this just adolescent rebellion and thus something to grow out of?

Sheri: Coupla’ weeks ago I severely thrashed the arguments made by an atheist liberal attack-dog’s over the Cliven Bundy debacle. A religious conservative was arguing for Bundy in an unfailingly polite manner and made more than a few reasonable points. The liberal’s counter-attack was nasty and personal. It also undermined freedom of speech, and ignored the long liberal tradition of sometimes looking the other way when oppressed minorities break laws in protest, sometimes in violent fashion.

In short, I oft do police my own side, to the extent that I have one; harshly if necessary. I try not to police my opposites. I don’t always succeed at either.

Smoking is bad for you. But it’s legal, it’s been around a long, long time. It’s a cultural thing. Sin tax it, ban it in public places where people are forced to breathe it. Complain about it. Whatever. This is one of those things the culture will have to work out. Trade, monetary policy, foreign policy, the police and military states, healthcare and education – these are the the pressing matters for the polity these days.

Briggs, here’s me confessing oft succumbing to rage and hate. My fury is stoked even more when I forget I’m not a mind-reader and I judge them for not copping to it. At least an allowance for the possibility goes a long way with me, but alas, even that seems rare.

I postulate that the Interwebz are skewed toward the angry outspoken, giving undue emphasis to the tails of the curve at the expense of the softer-speaking fat part.

These are the kind of people that we this is pointed out they simply come back with â€œbut smoking is badâ€. Itâ€™s like facts and accuracy donâ€™t matter because the crusade is too important for those impediments.

At the policy level, the health issues are the best leverage. That empirical observations are selectively presented is odious, but that’s also just the nature of politics.

While I do gripe at the the perceived stigma against smokers such as myself, I don’t like to whine about it. Truth is, in everyday life in the real world, I accept that just the smell of smoke bothers non-smokers — I didn’t smoke until my 30s.

As a smoker, I applauded legislation against indoor public smoking. The outdoor smoking policies are getting a quite out of hand for my tastes. If we have to legislate common decency, it indicates that something is deeply wrong with common decency. Laws don’t fix discourtesy, same as they don’t fix stupid. Education and gentle exhortation work much better.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but your duck reductio ad absurdum (re-duck-tio ad absurdum?) is real: they’re called otherkin. It’s only a matter of time before you’ll be condemned as a hateful bigot for not embracing, nay celebrating, their alternative zoological lifestyles.

Remember that conservative is the new liberal and that liberal is the new progressive or socialist. Of course you may not have noticed since the term liberal was high jacked before you were born. So what kind of liberal are you, new liberal, classical liberal (i.e libertarian), or something else?

I’m aware of the history of terminolgy changes, though not in depth. It’s not as relevant to me as the actual history of events. And I loathe labels, especially when their defintions do drift and/or completely flip-flop. So prepare for my not infrequent verbosity:

I’m a social liberal in a libertarian sort of sense, but not tending toward the anarchy spectrum of libertarianism. Basically, I’m willing to leave others to their own so long as they extend me the same courtesy.

When any individual or group violates that principle, I judge it wrong. Doesn’t matter whose ideology it is. Liberty is liberty and must be defended, and gummint is a necessary last line of defence; though absolutely not my preferred one.

My economics lean toward the saltwater school, but I mix in some fresh water depending on the issue. For instance, I would put the able-bodied unemployed to work and/or retraining in lieu of just mailing a check. Bank and auto industry bailouts didn’t upset me, but neither did the stimulus. I was for the public healthcare option alongside continuation of private insurance, Obamacare stinks without it. I’d prefer nukes to carbon taxes. Etc.

My views on foreign policy would upset pretty much everyone because I think most everyone’s views on it suck.

Is conservative and right wing the same thing?

Couldn’t say, don’t really care.

Isnâ€™t right wing simply what the left calls the opposition and thus has no other meaning?

And likely vice-versa. See again the arbitrary nature of labels; extend to stereotyping opposing groups instead of focusing on specific issues.

That was simply the origin of the term. Why would you want to see others squirm uncomfortably?

Schadenfreude, but with the additional satisfaction of people reaping that which they have sown. Actually, not at all that I enjoy seeing accidental misfortune befalling others. Perhaps I need a better $3 word here.

Isnâ€™t this just adolescent rebellion and thus something to grow out of?

For me it borders on revenge. And yes, I need to grow out of it. I’ve come far enough in the past few years to logically recognize that the hard left is not discernably better behaved than the right. My emotions are far from having caught up.

Gates, “Iâ€™m a social liberal in a libertarian sort of sense”. A contradiction in terms. The expression social liberal was the historical path by which liberalism was turned into its polar opposite, the point where we are today.

“Couldnâ€™t say, donâ€™t really care.” This is confusing since you equated them in a previous post.

“And likely vice-versa”. No, since the terms left and right are an invention of the left, the soviets actually, for the purpose that I stated.

“So prepare for my not infrequent verbosity”. So I’ve noticed. Long comments tend to go unread, at least by me.

FYI: left- and right-wing originated in the parliament of the French First Republic: the republicans sat on the left side benches and the monarchists sat on the right. As the Revolution moved to greater extremes — turning churches into Temples of Reason, guillotining parents for baptizing their children — those who adhered to republican ideals became the new right wing. And so it has gone since.

Both parties in the US are left wing, since both are republican as far as it goes: they are left-liberals and right-liberals. Europe meanwhile invented left socialism (international socialism) and right socialism (national socialism) and the whole continent jumped in the handbasket.

No doubt I was using it for sake of brevity against my better judgement.

Long comments tend to go unread, at least by me.

You asked, I answered. I don’t enjoy the feeling of being in a double-bind. I really dislike when reasonable discussions get side-tracked by crap semantic wriggling, so here’s the deal: you define terms and I’ll use them.

Gates,
This all reminds me of Richard Feynman’s invention of his own mathematical symbols in his youth. The punch line was, from Surely You’re Joking:

“I thought my symbols were just as good, if not better, than the regular symbols–it doesn’t make any difference what symbols you use–but I discovered later that it does make a difference. Once when I was explaining something to another kid in high school, without thinking I started to make these symbols, and he said, “What the hell are those?” I realized then that if I’m going to talk to anybody else, I’ll have to use the standard symbols, so I eventually gave up my own symbols.”

Scotian, I don’t entirely disagree. Labels are a convenient shorthand. How they’re used is where it gets trixy. So, “not using them entirely” is problematic for me. Such is the sort of “political correctness” that I personally despise.

Sheri, only reason I track it is for the political theatre. Ollie going on tee vee and slamming the Obama administration for paying a ransom to terrorists for a US citizen and ex-soldier was the supreme irony of it all for me. Other than that, I really don’t care or even want to know the details. We have bigger issues, and frankly the distraction over such minutiae is annoying.

FYI: left- and right-wing originated in the parliament of the French First Republic: the republicans sat on the left side benches and the monarchists sat on the right.

Which contradicts what scotian wrote about those terms originating from the “left” by the Soviets. Not said, but implied: “communists”. And then he said to me, “Best to avoid those terms entirely,” referring to left, right, liberal, conservative.

Aside from historical interest, which is fascinating by the way, what’s the actual relevance to what those terms mean today, if anything? What I don’t like are tangential diversions from interesting topics into arbitrary semantics. I think a much more relevant discussion is how those terms, whatever they “mean” are used. An acceptable shorthand? As a negatively prejudiced stereotype?

YOS,
“FYI: left- and right-wing originated in the parliament of the French First Republic”

I knew someone would take the bait. The terms refer to this but their use in politics is a twentieth century development, first appearing with the soviet communists. In particular, to be right wing was to be a counter revolutionary. This probably explains the rather bizarre claim that the national socialists were right wing.

As opposed to car exhaust, your cigar IS â€œcomparatively harmless,â€ but better than that, almost all the statistical links between tobacco and disease pertain ONLY to cigarettes. People who smoke cigars or pipes die at about the same rate as people who donâ€™t smoke at all.

But beware of giving up your â€œaddiction.â€ People who stop smoking cigars or pipes are MORE likely to die than those who continue smoking.

How do I know this? Statistics! In particular the famous (infamous?) 1964 Surgeon Generalâ€™s report that â€œprovedâ€ that smoking causes lung cancer. You can find all SG reports on-line at the Centers For Disease Control website (cdc.gov). See page 112 for cigars and pipes, and page 102 for cigarette / lung cancer mortality.

For anyone interested in misleading information and gross statistical abuse, the â€œscientific literatureâ€ on smoking is an almost unending source of examples.

Itâ€™s America thatâ€™s popularized antismoking insanity â€“ again, and which other countries are following suit. The problem with Americans is that they are clueless to even their own recent history. America has a terrible history with this sort of â€œhealthâ€ fanaticism/zealotry/extremism or â€œclean livingâ€ hysteria â€“ including antismoking – that goes back more than a century.

Antismoking is not new. It has a long, sordid, 400+ year history, much of it predating even the pretense of a scientific basis or the more recent concoction of secondhand smoke â€œdangerâ€. Antismoking crusades typically run on inflammatory propaganda, i.e., lies, in order to get law-makers to institute bans. Statistics and causal attribution galore are conjured. The current antismoking rhetoric has all been heard before. All it produces is irrational fear and hatred, discord, enmity, animosity, social division, oppression, and bigotry. One of the two major antismoking (and anti-alcohol, dietary prescriptions/proscriptions, physical exercise) crusades early last century was in America. [The other crusade was in WWII Germany and the two crusades were intimately connected by physician-led eugenics]. The USA has been down this twisted, divisive path before. Consider the following: The bulk of claims made about smoking/tobacco were erroneous, baseless, but highly inflammatory. Unfortunately, the propaganda did its destructive job in the short term, producing mass hysteria or a bigotry bandwagon. When supported by the State, zealots seriously mess with peopleâ€™s minds on a mass scale.http://www.americanheritage.com/content/thank-you-not-smokinghttp://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19981129&slug=2786034http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2352989/pdf/bmj00571-0040.pdf

The current antismoking crusade, very much in the eugenics tradition â€“ involving the same medically-aligned personnel and repugnant methodology, is much like crusades over the previous 400 years. It is a moralizing, social-engineering, eradication/prohibition crusade decided upon in the 1970s by a small, self-installed clique of [medically-oriented] fanatics operating under the auspices of the World Health Organization and sponsored by the American Cancer Society (see the Godber Blueprint http://www.rampant-antismoking.com ). This little, unelected group, using much the same inflammatory rhetoric of its fanatical predecessors, decided for everyone that tobacco-use should be eradicated from the world â€“ for a â€œbetterâ€ (according to them) world. These fanatics were speaking of secondhand smoke â€œdangerâ€ and advocating indoor and OUTDOOR smoking bans years before the first study on SHS: In the 1970s, populations â€“ particularly in relatively free societies â€“ werenâ€™t interested in elitist social-engineering, particularly by a group (medically-aligned) that had a horrible recent track record (eugenics). Given that their antismoking crusade would have otherwise stalled, the zealots conjured secondhand smoke â€œdangerâ€ to advance the social-engineering agenda, i.e., inflammatory propaganda. Until only recently the zealots claimed they werenâ€™t doing social engineering, that they werenâ€™t moralizing. Well, thatâ€™s a lie thatâ€™s been told many times over the last few decades.

The zealotsâ€™ goal this time is not to ban the sale of tobacco but to ban smoking in essentially all the places that people smoke (combined with extortionate taxes), indoors and out. Up until recently the social-engineering intent has been masqueraded as protecting nonsmokers from secondhand smoke â€œdangerâ€. But even this fraud can no longer be hidden in that bans are now being instituted for large outdoor areas such as parks, beaches, campuses where there is no demonstrable â€œhealthâ€ issue for nonsmokers. This dangerous mix of the medically-aligned attempting social engineering is a throwback to a century ago. We seem to have learned nothing of value from very painful lessons of only the recent past.

Hereâ€™s a brief history of the antismoking madness (Godber Blueprint) over the last few decades.

The first demand for a smoking ban was in the late-1980s concerning short-haul flights in the USA of less than 2 hours. At the time, the antismokers were asked if this was a â€œslippery slopeâ€ â€“ where would it end? They ridiculed anyone suggesting such because this ban was ALL that they were after.
Then they ONLY wanted smoking bans on all flights.
Then the antismokers ONLY wanted nonsmoking sections in restaurants, bars, etc., and ensuring that this was ALL they wanted.
Then the antismokers ONLY wanted complete bans indoors. That was all they wanted. At the time, no-one was complaining about having to â€œendureâ€ wisps of smoke outdoors.

While they pursued indoor bans, the antismokers were happy for smokers to be exiled to the outdoors. Having bulldozed their way into indoor bans, the antismokers then went to work on the outdoors, now declaring that momentary exposure to remnants of smoke in doorways or a whiff outdoors was a â€œhazardâ€, more than poor, innocent nonsmokers should have to â€œendureâ€.
Then they ONLY wanted bans within 10 feet of entrance ways.
Then they ONLY wanted bans within 20 feet of entrance ways.
Then they ONLY wanted bans in entire outdoor dining areas.
Then they ONLY wanted bans for entire university and hospital campuses and parks and beaches.
Then they ONLY wanted bans for apartment balconies.
Then they ONLY wanted bans for entire apartment (including individual apartments) complexes.

On top of all of this, there are now instances where smokers are denied employment, denied housing (even the elderly), and denied medical treatment. Smokers in the UK are denied fostering/adoption. Involuntary mental patients are restrained physically or chemically (sedation) or multi-day solitary confinement rather than allow them to have a cigarette â€“ even outside. In some countries there are also compounded extortionate taxes.

At each point there was a crazed insistence that there was no more to come while they were actually planning the next ban and the brainwashing required to push it. The incessant claim was that they were not doing â€œsocial engineeringâ€ (prohibition) when the current antismoking crusade has been so from the outset, just like pretty well every previous antismoking crusade. There has been incessant (pathological) lying and deception. Many medically-aligned groups have been committed to antismoking â€“ their smokefree â€œutopiaâ€ â€“ since the 1960s, and are also in the pay of Pharma companies peddling their useless â€œnicotine replacementâ€ products. They have prostituted their medical authority and integrity to chase ideology (this is exactly what occurred in the eugenics of early last century). All of it is working to a tobacco-extermination plan run by the WHO (dominated by the American â€œmodelâ€) and that most nations are now signed-up to (Framework Convention on Tobacco Control).

From Bayer & Stuberâ€œâ€¦..In the last half century the cigarette has been transformed. The fragrant has become foul. . . . An emblem of attraction has become repulsive. A mark of sociability has become deviant. A public behavior is now virtually private. Not only has the meaning of the cigarette been transformed but even more the meaning of the smoker [who] has become a pariah . . . the object of scorn and hostility.â€http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2005.071886

This change from fragrant to foul has not come from the smoke which has remained a constant. The shift is an entirely psychological one. Unfortunately, the way the shift is manufactured is through negative conditioning. The constant play on fear and hatred through inflammatory propaganda warps perception. Ambient tobacco smoke was essentially a background phenomenon. Now exposure to tobacco smoke (SHS) has been fraudulently manufactured into something on a par with a bio-weapon like, say, sarin gas. There are now quite a few who screech that they â€œcanâ€™t standâ€ the â€œstenchâ€ of smoke, or the smoke is â€œoverwhelmingâ€; there are now those, hand cupped over mouth, that attempt to avoid even a whiff of dilute remnants of smoke â€“ even outdoors. There are those that claim that, arriving from a night out, they had to put all of their clothes in the washing machine and scrape the â€œsmokeâ€ off their skin in the shower. There are even those that claim they are â€œallergicâ€ to tobacco smoke. Yet there are no allergens (proteins) in tobacco smoke to be allergic to.

And it didnâ€™t stop with just the smoke. Cigarette butts â€“ heretofore unheard of â€“ suddenly became a â€œmonumental problemâ€ too â€“ akin to improvised explosive devices, requiring drastic action. These are all recent phenomena born of toxic propaganda; it is an expanding hysteria. It says nothing about the physical properties/propensities of tobacco smoke. These people are demonstrating that they have been successfully conditioned (brainwashed) into aversion. They are now suffering mental dysfunction such as anxiety disorder, hypochondria, or somatization. Typical symptoms of anxiety disorder are heart palpitations, chest tightness, shortness of breath, headache, dizziness, etc. These capnophobics (smokephobics) are no different to those irrationally attempting to avoid cracks in the pavement lest their mental world come crashing down. Questionable social engineering requires putting many into mental disorder to advance the ideological/financial agenda. It is the antismoking fanatics/zealots/extremists and their toxic mentality and propaganda that have long been in need of urgent scrutiny.

Nonsmokers are simply people that do not smoke. There are nonsmokers that like the aroma of tobacco smoke and there are plenty more that are not fussed one way or the other. Antismokers, on the other hand, are a different mentality altogether. Antismokers hate [tobacco] smoke/smoking/smokers. Thereâ€™s even a name thatâ€™s been given to this hatred of smoke that probably originated in the antismoking fanaticism in America a century ago â€“ â€œmisocapnistâ€. Even with the antismoking barrage of the last 30 years, antismokers are still a small group. So, to get their way with legislators they typically hijack the entire nonsmokers group, pretending to speak for all nonsmokers. The history of antismoking is that antismokers will hijack anything â€“ science, religion, history â€“ to depict their bizarre hatred as â€œnormalâ€. Itâ€™s rabid antismokers that are neurotic bigots.

Itâ€™s antismokers that find tobacco smoke as â€œobnoxiousâ€â€¦. that it â€œstinksâ€. Itâ€™s antismokersâ€™ subjective experience that they then depict as â€œobjectiveâ€. And then follows the â€œfilthyâ€, â€œdisgustingâ€, â€œdirtyâ€ barrage. Antismokersâ€™ hyper-reactivity to tobacco smoke is inordinate, disproportionate; many react to even a whiff of smoke as if theyâ€™re being led to the gallows. Even their vocabulary in describing smoke is terribly exaggerated â€“ they have to negotiate â€œwallsâ€ or â€œtunnelsâ€ or â€œcloudsâ€ of smoke. Just spend a little time with a rabid antismoker and it becomes quickly apparent that they canâ€™t be reacting to the physical properties of smoke. They seem to be troubled minds projecting their significant inner turmoil (fear/hate) onto smoke.

State-sponsored inflammatory propaganda concerning tobacco smoke promotes irrational belief, fear and hatred on a mass scale. The fear-mongering has produced a nocebo effect (e.g., anxiety disorder, hypochondria, somatization) in the gullible. Hereâ€™s a short but useful video on the nocebo:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2hO4_UEe-4&feature=youtu.be&a

â€œAppeal to Authorityâ€
In all of the antismoking crusades of the last few centuries, there is one common thread â€“ incessant lying. There is no lie too big for antismoking zealots in attempting to force their deranged agenda into law. The lies are temporarily accepted through â€œappeal to authorityâ€ (argumentum ad auctoritatem/verecundiam). All antismoking crusades involve lies promoted as fact through abuse of authority, e.g., abuse of monarchy (King James, King Murad), abuse of religious authority (Temperance groups), abuse of medical authority (Eugenics).

In America early last century there were all manner of claims made by both religious and medical groups about the deleterious effects of smoking. The bulk of claims were wrong and highly inflammatory, many of them just plainly made up. Yet the medically-aligned (eugenics) in particular â€“ claiming medical authority â€“ gained influence over the legislature and wreaked havoc with anti-alcohol/tobacco crusades (in addition to the racism/breeding that eugenics was most notorious for), and very much supported by Temperance groups.

The groups that were hijacked very early in this crusade were the Office of the Surgeon-General and the Centers for Disease Control. The medical credentials of these groups were then exploited to push an ideological (antismoking) agenda. The current crusade is further complicated by vested financial interests. Pharmaceutical companies have an interest in antismoking in peddling their â€œsmoking cessationâ€ wares â€“ â€œnicotine replacement therapyâ€ and Chantix. The Robert Woods Johnson Foundation has pumped billions of dollars into funding antismoking groups. Antismoking groups push for increased taxation on tobacco, smoking bans, etc which put pressure on smokers to quit, who are in turn directed to Pharma wares. RWJFâ€™s income comes from a very large stock holding in Johnson & Johnson, manufacturers of NRT. NRT is essentially ineffective because the idea of â€œnicotine addictionâ€ is entirely questionable. It was the Office of the Surgeon-General that [incoherently] re-defined smoking as â€œnicotine addictionâ€ in 1988. The idea of nicotine addiction is also a throwback to the 1800s.

This is all quite brief, but the current antismoking crusade comes from a dangerous partnering of fanaticism/zealotry and vested financial interests. Hereâ€™s the WHO, the originator of the current crusade, publicly indicating its partnership with Pharma interests, although the connection goes further back than 1999:
WHO LAUNCHES PARTNERSHIP WITH THE PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY TO HELP SMOKERS QUIThttp://www.who.int/inf-pr-1999/en/pr99-04.html

To save posting lengthy comments here, please see the series of comments by â€œmagnetic01â€ entitled â€œA Short Study on Argumentum Ad Verecundiamâ€ for an example of how the antismoking network goes about inflicting â€œappeal to authorityâ€ on the public:http://cfrankdavis.wordpress.com/2013/12/23/i-dont-believe-them/

â€œI was sitting on a raised planter on a street corner in San Francisco, the home of Tolerance.â€

Sympathies. San Francisco is an epi-centre of antismoking fanaticism/zealotry. And the antismoking insanity is led by this guy â€“ Stanton Glantz – at UCSF.

Some background on Stan.
Glantz has been with the current antismoking crusade from the very beginning in the 1970s. He is a long-time antismoking activist.
He is promoted as a â€œprofessor of medicineâ€ or a â€œprofessor of cardiologyâ€. Yet heâ€™s never done any formal medical training. He makes all manner of economics pronouncements. Yet he has no post-graduate qualifications in economics.

For those not familiar, Glantz is no â€œprofessor of medicineâ€. He is a mechanical engineer that was given a professorship of medicine by UCSF to lend â€œmedical weightâ€ to his bigoted antismoking ranting and raving. Heâ€™s a fraud promoting the logical fallacy of â€œappeal to authorityâ€ along with many of his buddies in Public Health and Tobacco Control.

According to his online biography, Glantz was awarded a Ph.D. in 1973 from Stanford University in Applied Mechanics and Engineering Economic Systems. From this mechanical background, Glantz undertook a postdoctoral year at Stanford University in Cardiology (1975), and another postdoctoral year at the University of California (San Francisco) in cardiovascular research (1977). It appears that the connection to cardiology is in â€œapplied mechanicalâ€ terms; he has no formal training in medicine. In 1977, Glantz was given the academic posting of assistant professor in Cardiology at UCSF; this was upgraded to a full professorship in 1987. Glantz is currently a Professor of Medicine and Director of the Center for Tobacco Control Research & Education at the University of California (San Francisco). It appears that the â€œmedicalâ€ status serves essentially to â€œlegitimizeâ€ the antitobacco status and exploit Glantzâ€™s high profile in this area.http://tobacco.ucsf.edu/users/sglantzhttp://www.nycclash.com/CaseAgainstBans/Appendix.html

Glantz is a glorified mechanic. Astounding is that this extremist, neurotic buffoon that travels the world pontificating on the â€œbenefitsâ€ of extreme antismoking measures has been allowed to present himself for the last few decades as a professor of medicine or professor of cardiology. There doesnâ€™t appear to be even one instance where a journalist has asked fundamental questions of Glantz â€“ have you had any clinical training in medicine, where did you complete your internship, with which medical board are you certified to practice medicine. The fraud should have been exposed years ago in the MSM along with the academic system in California that bestowed upon him the â€œprofessorshipâ€.

This glorified mechanic and fake medico has even conjured â€œstudiesâ€ in economics. His latest WHO-inspired venture is into film censorship, i.e., getting an R-rating for films that contain smoking scenes (see â€œappeal to authorityâ€ link above). The narcissistic fool knows no bounds: he can fabricate â€œevidenceâ€ in any arena.

MikeF
You will not find the 1967 Surgeon General report on smoking and health on the surgeon general website. It’s been disapeared. This report shows that smokers have lower disease and mortality rates than non-smokers. You can find it here.http://members.iinet.net.au/~ray/SG8.htm

Ray, this will probably go into moderation because of the links, butâ€¦.

I think I know the 1967 report you reference, and no matter how much I dislike the Surgeon General and other health nuts, the report was not suppressed (but itâ€™s not easy to find unless you know exactly what to look for). If Iâ€™ve got the right document, it was created by the National Center for Health Statistics, so itâ€™s not part of the SG canon. The title is â€œCigarette Smoking and Health Characteristicsâ€ (publication series 10 # 34, May 1967). It has your Table A on page 8. http://www.cdc.gov/search.do?q=site%3Awww.cdc.gov%2Fnchs%2Fdata+filetype%3Apdf+“Cigarette+Smoking+and+Health+Characteristics”&submit1=Search Itâ€™s the first item on the list.

While the Surgeon Generalâ€™s name does appear on the title page, the report was apparently written by Ronald W. Wilson. (I donâ€™t think this is mentioned in the text.)

Finding light smokers healthier than nonsmokers certainly clouds a dose response relationship. (I think this has been found before [Framingham?]; I wouldnâ€™t trust a single study.) But DR has another serious problem. The cohort studies (e.g., British Doctors) show nonsmokers with the least amount of lung cancer, pack a day smokers with more, and two pack a day smokers with more still. Looks like dose / response. But all three groups develop cancer at roughly the same age. This canâ€™t (?) be DR.

Doll / Pike: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/drn24a99 Sad to say, Iâ€™m a mathematical illiterate, not qualified to evaluate this paper. I would point out, however, that table IV â€“ smoking 3,000 cigarettes (150 packs!) a day â€“ is weird.

Sheri
In the Nevada land case there was also the hypocrisy. Of a govt that itself selectively obeys the law coming down on this guy with the letter of it. This admin ignores immigration laws at will, bypasses congress and the constitution with frightening regularity, and invents “waivers” whenever it feels like it. I see your point, but let’s have consistency.

JMJ
I fail to see how your choice to tax smokers for their “sin” and banish them from all “public” places (most of which are as privately owned as that bakery) represents tolerance and isn’t another way of forcing your morality on others.

Sheri: thing I keep in mind is that it’s hard to know what the gummint is really up to at times. But, it can be sued in public court. If courts are too crooked to get it sorted, we’re pretty much hosed. I find it hard to believe we’re at that point as yet.

hmm…all this stuff about smoking… I used to smoke a pipe–messy, bad on teeth and mouth–and an occasional cigar after dinner. Miss the cigar but not the pipe. Kids when they visit, smoke, but outside. Trying to think of a smoking analog for the comic strip “Heaven’s Love Thrift Shop” new version of turn the other cheek: “If anyone hacks your Facebook, let them hack you Twitter also.” … any ideas?

Brandon: It matters not what the government was “up to” in the case I mentioned. The court route had already been taken and Bundy lostâ€”repeatedly. Action against him was taken after he lost and refused to follow the court rulings. Yes, you can still go to court and many ranchers have. Some win, some lose. Just like in every other venue of life.

Matt,
If this a story or recent events?
If you were recently in San Francisco your Uncle Tim and your cousins are a little bit down the road in Sacramento and would have loved to gone out to dinner and otherwise caught up.

My wife and I had dinner with you in NYC a short 11 years ago on our honeymoon with Unlce Dale and Aunt Kayla.

When I was writing the section on “Hate” in TobakkoNacht — The Antismoking Endgame I searched for a way that could communicate the true amount and depth of the hate that has been so carefully built against smokers over the past twenty or thirty years.

Just talking about it academically wouldn’t work, and citing three or four or even a dozen “anecdotal examples” wouldn’t mean much: they’d be rightfully tossed off as cherry-picking out of the vast field of life. Taking dozens of pages to outline examples didn’t seem right either: the book was already over 400 pages long and I didn’t want to detract so seriously from the content- and thought-filled pages of so many of the other sections.

I finally hit upon the idea of emulating Orwell’s “Two Minutes Of Hate” by providing, in a smaller font and using condensed spacing, “Four Pages Of Hate” — one comment after another, chosen from the many hundreds I’d saved from message boards over the years, showing the nastiness that is out there in all its rawness, just as it was written by the posters.

If you go to http://bit.ly/WallOfHate you’ll see those four pages transformed into a single 3′ x 4′ poster that I use (along with a few others) as wall-hangings when I do book presentations. The print is small, but you can download it and enlarge it, and even use it yourself to print out a poster if you want. The volume, intensity, and sheer unadulterated meanness of it all concentrated in one single space manages, to at least some extent, to convey the size and seriousness of the problem.

I think white people are superior to other races and should rule over them because Whites inherently have better judgement. If you call me a racist then you’re just doing exactly what you’re complaining about in this article. So where’s the line? If you think, like most decent people, that racial discrimination is bad, then you’d disagree with me. But don’t you dare call me a bigot or racist, because I’m not. I just disagree with your morality … Right?